Max Puts the Boot In

There was a special Christmas Eve treat in the Washington Post – an op ed by the redoubtable Max Boot explaining why the United States needs to leave a substantial military force in Afghanistan after 2014. Russian-born Boot is a leading neoconservative who currently perches at the Council on Foreign Relations, but he also writes frequently for the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal. In common with many other neocons, Boot has never served in the U.S. military yet appears to be fascinated by it. I can find no evidence that he has done anything but cheerlead every war Washington has fought since 9/11 while demanding, “more please.” In September 2012 he co-authored “5 Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now.” He holds a master’s degree in diplomatic history from Yale University, which has not stopped him from morphing into a “military historian.”

As part of his argument, Boot constructs the usual straw man to explain why Washington should maintain substantially in excess of the 6,000 strong force currently envisioned for deployment near Kabul post-2014. It goes like this:

“Imagine that intelligence analysts have identified a ‘high value target’ – say, a terrorist facilitator with links to both al-Qaeda and the Taliban – in Kandahar. How would the US military capture or kill him without a secure base in Kandahar?”

Boot’s reductio ad absurdum argument suggests that something like a division of U.S. troops should remain in Afghanistan in perpetuity just in case his “high value target” shows up. He ignores the fact that there would be substantial Afghan security forces of various kinds in and around the city as well as a CIA base that would itself have significant paramilitary resources. The argument for keeping American soldiers in large numbers in any location where there is a terrorism problem is infinitely elastic and can be used for stationing soldiers anywhere and everywhere. What applies to Afghanistan also applies to places like the Philippines or Indonesia. The question that Boot does not ask is “What kind of threat to the United States does the straw man in Kandahar really represent?” Absent a clear and imminent threat directed against American lives and property the argument for continued U.S. involvement in far off wars is and should be unsustainable.

Boot has never served in the U.S. military yet appears to be fascinated by it. I can find no evidence that he has done anything but cheerlead every war Washington has fought since 9/11 while demanding, “more please.” In September 2012 he co-authored “5 Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now.” He holds a master’s degree in diplomatic history from Yale University, which has not stopped him from morphing into a “military historian.”

Not unique at all. Russia has a “military expert” Pavel Falgenhauer–a darling of ABC, CNN and WSJ (to name a few) crowd. The guy graduated Moscow State with degree in biology (the topic of the thesis, I believe, was something about tape worms)–that did not preclude Falgenhauer from becoming one of the major sources of Russian “military expertise” for American media. I am not going to go into the reasons why he has become, probably, one of the most referred to and quoted “experts”, but the fact remains. I was contemplating for some time of going into the neurosurgery analyses (I heard good hours and awesome pay) and becoming an “expert”–should be a smooth transition;-) As per Boot and likes, Madeleine Albright comes to mind with her military expertise , which almost gave Colin Powell aneurism–I strongly believe that there is such a phenomenon as fascination with the military power among those who, supposedly, should be doing everything in their power to limit its use. This rings especially true for journalists, some of whom may not even be neocon types.

““Imagine that intelligence analysts have identified a ‘high value target’ – say, a terrorist facilitator with links to both al-Qaeda and the Taliban – in Kandahar. How would the US military capture or kill him without a secure base in Kandahar?””

As I understand it, the argument is that the US must have a secure base in Kandahar in order to protect Mr. Boot from his terrorist enemies. The grim corollary that we need secure bases everywhere to protect Mr. Boot from terrorist enemies.

Perhaps Mr. Boot’s friends should tactfully explain to him that his argument seems a little funny from the perspective of what has been dubbed “the reality-based community”.

Nonetheless, I am sure we are all for Mr. Boot being safe from terrorists from wherever they may hail, be it Kandahar, Ulan Bator, Sligo or Easter Island … and surely I am not the first to suspect that both he and we would feel safer if Mr. Boot were evacuated to a secure facility (call it a “base” if you like) where The Terrorists cannot find him, and where he can receive professional care commensurate with the gravity of his condition.

It is startling how well-represented the foreign-born and dual citizens are among the voices urging Americans to war. Is there no way to filter these people out before they turn up in DC think tanks with degrees from Yale?

“Imagine that intelligence analysts have identified a ‘high value target’ – say, a terrorist facilitator with links to both al-Qaeda and the Taliban – in Prague. How would the US military capture or kill him without a secure base in Prague?”